Connect with us

International Law

The 21st Century: The Century of Reforming The UN Security Council

Raiis Gassanly

Published

on

Reforming the UN SC with the veto power only of the UN Secretary General and a new article of the UN Charter “On the Rights of Nations to Self-Determination” will eliminate the aggressive fervor of the USA, Russia and China on inciting regional and world wars on our Planet.

On July 19, 2017, at the meeting of the UN General Assembly devoted to the reform of the UN SC, the Deputy Permanent Mission of Russia to the UN V. Safronov raised the issue of the reform of the UNSC. He proposes to expand the composition of the Security Council at the expense of only the countries of Asia and Africa, which is a formal attitude towards the UN, as the most important organ in the fate of the countries of the world in maintaining international peace and security on our planet.

In my opinion, the expansion of the UN SC should cover the most important countries from all continents of our Planet. At the same time, in the absence of members rights to the veto, which will allow discussing in the UN SC the most important problems of the countries of the world with relevant resolutions for the reality of their execution.

Below I cite my draft reform of the UN SC, which differs radically from the proposal of the representative of the Russian Federation, the United States and other countries to the United Nations.

REFORMING THE UN SC WITH THE RIGHT OF THE VETO OF THE UNSC

Mankind is at the forefront of a direct collision between the United States and Russia or China on the basis of their geopolitical and geostrategic interests in their regions and countries of the world. As a fact, the UN SC has long been in the position of a “Chinese observer” – a passive observer of the aggressive actions of the leading empires with their invasions into the countries of the world, beginning in the middle of the XX century to this day in Asia, Europe and the Middle East.

And as the consequences of these invasions, there is complete ruin of the regions and the infrastructure of countries, the massive death of civilians and the flow of refugees, which, in turn, leads to global problems in Europe and the USA.

This bloody large-scale process continues to this day since 2000 year, where, finally, from 2015 year, the interests of the powers of the USA and Russia collided directly with their heads in the Middle East in order to display their monopolistic geostrategic positions in specific regions of the world. In turn, the confrontation between the US and Russia is urgently needed by the time of the shaky regime of President Vladimir Putin, when the material condition of the population and the country’s infrastructure is cracking along all the seams with a weak economy.

A rhetorical question arises: what is the leading role of the UN and its main body of the Security Council, as an international organization of all countries of the world? The UN was created, on the one hand, to prevent world and regional wars with disastrous consequences due to Man’s fault, as heads of leading empires and countries of the world. On the other hand, to prevent natural disasters and disasters for the population of the Planet, such as nuclear power plant explosions, tsunamis, earthquakes, meteorite falls, landslides, tectonic collisions and much more.

The creation of the UN in 1945 pursued international cooperation of the countries of the world in political, economic, scientific, cultural, sports and other types of relations, regardless of their political, social, national and religious conditions.

The basis of the UN SC is the primary responsibility for maintaining peace and security in the countries of the world, suppressing not only regional and world wars, but also separatism on interethnic and interreligious soil. At the same time, all UN members are obliged to obey the decisions of the UN SC and their implementation.

A rhetorical question arises: why does the UN SC, from the date of its emergence to this day more than 70 years, fail to fulfill its direct responsibilities for maintaining peace and security, against the background of the regional wars in the world? Why does the UN SC not consider the causes of the emergence of aggressive bloody wars at the level of civilian deaths, mass refugees and the devastation of their cities by major powers? Why does the UN SC not give a proper assessment of the actions of countries like the USA, the former USSR, its successor to Russia and other specific countries of the world? Why does the UN SC not control over the years the course of action of the resolutions on specific countries, which it adopted, and does not put forward at the same time sanctions? Who and why is interested in this when the bill for these wars is no longer in millions and billions of dollars, but in the end in trillions? Whereas the US debt is $ 23 trillion, when the largest historical power of the USSR disappears, and the economy of its successor to Russia today is not detached from the muddy bottom.

According to the UN Charter, countries of the world have authorized the UN SC to “investigate any dispute or situation that may lead to international friction or cause a dispute to determine whether the continuation of this dispute or situation could not threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.” However, even today, the UN SC ignores all bloody events in the countries of the world. What is the reason for not fulfilling the duties of the UN SC?

As a vivid example, the outcome of the Second World War in early 1945 was predetermined by the defeat of Nazi Germany, and at the same time aggressive Japan, and does not give a proper assessment of these US nuclear strikes with the massive deaths of more than 200 thousand people and the complete devastation of two cities in Japan. And this, in turn, allows the former USSR in 1961 to provoke the Cuban nuclear crisis with the United States, and then its successor Russia to threaten nuclear ashes for the United States and European countries.

There was also no assessment of the actions of the authorities of England, which led to the ruins, like Stalingrad in 1943, the beautiful city of Dresden with historical museums just for the fact that the world criminal of Nazi Germany Adolf Hitler steadily bombed and destroyed their cities.

So, with the tacit consent of the UN SC, the wars since 1945 have not only stopped, but, on the contrary, have become more frequent in the regions of the world due to the following, in my opinion, reasons. These include the achievement of priorities of the geopolitical and geostrategic interests of the nuclear superpowers in the regions of the world; dividing the world with the destruction of contradictory social systems, capitalist or formerly communist, and today simply Putin’s; intervention in dictatorial and authoritarian countries with their centuries – old Muslim orders and traditions in order to introduce the “democratic values” of Europe; the implementation of “historical justice” with the aim of reviving the centuries – old imperial territories like Tsarist Russia; the emergence of two or more sovereign states for the same nation in the absence of an article in the UN Charter “On the Rights of Nations to Self-Determination” with the dual policy of the countries.

With the collapse of the USSR, the hegemony of the one polar world politics of the United States over the countries of the West and the world is established. And this, in turn, allows the United States to pursue an independent foreign policy in the world, ignoring their consideration and the consent of the UN SC itself.

As two vivid examples of this, on the one hand, the United States, using the tragedy of September 11, 2001 in New York, killed about three thousand civilians in the skyscrapers at the hands of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda. On the other hand, the former USSR in 1979, without the resolutions of the UN Security Council, they sent their troops into Afghanistan under the slogan of creating “democratic institutions” in the ancient Muslim country. And this process continues to this day at the level of the civil war in the country of Afghanistan.

Without the relevant resolutions of the UN SC, the US in alliance with the countries of Europe has been waging an aggressive war from 2003 to this day in the countries of the Middle East – Iraq, Libya and Syria, with Russia joining in 2015. As a result, a self-proclaimed state of ISIL is born at the level of the ancient laws; complete devastation of cities with a massive death of the population and refugees in millions of people in the countries of the world.

All this speaks of the real viability of the UN regulator and the UN SC itself.

It follows that the Third World Nuclear War has not yet erupted with disastrous consequences for all of Mankind with its possible disappearance, it is necessary to reform the UN SC. At the same time, with all the discussions and resolutions adopted by him, the UN Secretary General should actively participate personally with the sole voting right granted to the UN SC resolutions. For he represents a responsible person for the destinies of the countries of the world – all the UN members, with the goal of actually protecting them the international rights of the countries of the world, regardless of their social systems, as dictatorial, authoritarian or democratic regimes.

The UN SC has the right to “determine the existence of any threat to peace, any violation of peace or an act of aggression and make recommendations or decide what measures should be taken to maintain or restore international peace and security.” The Security Council has the right to impose coercive measures on States violating peace and security, including the use of armed forces and certain sanctions, in accordance with Article 25 of the UN Charter. However, the UN SC cannot really use this right, because its members, like the United States and Russia, pursue a policy of double standard, using the veto right when they need it.

INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF UNSC UN MEMBERS RIGHT TO VETO

All of the above on the aggressive actions of the powers and countries of the world is explained, in my opinion, on the one hand, by the existence of the rights of the five permanent members of the UN SC to vote, veto for consideration, discussion and adoption of resolutions contradicting their foreign or domestic policy, promoting this geostrategic and geopolitical interests that go against the protection of the rights of civilians and the preservation of their places of residence. On the other hand, the five permanent members of the UN SC are not able to cover and specifically find out the pressing problems in the countries of the world with their solutions.

That is why since 1991, the United States used the veto more than 14 times, and Russia more than 13 times, which resulted in catastrophic consequences in the world, in the examples of the countries of the Middle East, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Georgia.

Countries around the world, including personally former UN SG Kofi Annan, made repeated statements on reforming the UN SC with the goal of increasing the number of permanent members, but without making any reservation about eliminating the veto power, which allows imperial countries to manifest geostrategic and geopolitical countries, at the root of their rights interests in the regions of the world.

In my opinion, in view of the above, the reform of the UN SC should be in the following order:

1. increasing the number of permanent members of the UN SC to 15 at the level of strategic and solvent countries – representatives of all continents of our Planet;

2. increasing the number of non-permanent members of the UN SC to 10, periodically replaced after 3 years, taking into account their solvency and significance in the regions of the continents of the Planet;

3. exclusion of the right to vote of the veto of all members of the UN SC;

4. all the issues discussed and the resolutions of the UNSC are adopted taking into account the majority of their votes and

5. oblige active participation in the activities of the UN SC by the UN SG, precisely with his right to vote in veto on questions and UN Security Council resolutions.

The current UN SC permanent members, as the countries of the anti-Hitler and Japanese-Chinese coalitions where the world wars took place, should remain on the UN SC list.

Further, we should take into account countries with their geographical location and importance in the regions of the continents of the Planet by the number of their population, religiosity, the power of their economy and armed forces.

Based on the foregoing, in my opinion:

A. permanent members of the UN Security Council should be: the United States, Russia, China, England, France, Germany, Italy, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, India, Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt, Brazil, Argentina; that is, there are 15 of them, and

B. non-permanent of the UN SC — periodically replaced every three years: Greece (Belgium, Bulgaria, Holland); Poland (Switzerland, Czech Republic, Romania); Denmark (Sweden, Norway, Finland); Azerbaijan (Belarus, Georgia, Armenia); Uzbekistan (Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan); Japan (Philippines, Malaysia, Australia, South Korea); Pakistan (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq); Israel (South Africa, Nigeria, Algeria, Tanzania); Chile (Colombia, Venezuela, Peru); Mexico (Canada. Paraguay); i.e. there are 10 of them.

Thus, in my opinion, the composition of the UN SC should consist of 15 permanent members and 10 non-permanent members. All of them do not have veto power.

In my opinion, a neutral person in the UN should have the right to vote the veto on the topics proposed for discussion and resolutions adopted on them by a majority of the UN SC votes. And this person, who will bear all responsibility for the activities and decisions taken by the UN SC, is none other than the UN Secretary General. This is similar to how in all countries of the world the final solution of the problem of war and peace is provided to the first person of the country – the President or the Premier. And this is my answer to the newly elected 45th President of the United States Donald Trump, who in one of his speeches of December 13, 2016, said: “As for the UN, from January 20, 2017, the organization will be different.” And in his inaugural address, he noted his US vision for the future: “America is first and foremost.” It is his concept of tensile and double meaning. At the same time, he did not mention about the countries of cooperation, including NATO, where the United States plays the leading role. Thus, the EU countries should realize that they can no longer hope for close cooperation and patronage from US.

We must look for ways to strengthen our role, at least in Europe, while not forgetting that it is precisely the reform of the UN SC and with the majority and solidarity of members that will allow them to influence the politics of the world.

It should be recalled that in 2000, the administration of former US President Bill Clinton agreed to expand the UN SC to more than 23 members. However, with the right to vote only to the permanent five members of the UN SC. Since the inception of the UN, the UN SC has been criticized to this day because of the voting rights of its five permanent members to decisions that could harm both their country and others in the world.

I graduated from the energy department of the Azerbaijan Institute of Oil and Chemistry in Baku in 1960. I taught in technical universities of the countries, I have a scientific degree and a title, as well as three author's inventions with certificates of the former USSR.

Continue Reading
Comments

International Law

South China Sea Dialogue 2019

Published

on

Centre for Security Studies, O P Jindal Global University organized (November 29) an international conference on the topic ‘The South China Sea: Current Challenges and Future Perspective’ at India International Centre (IIC), New Delhi. During the conference presentations were made by 14 eminent scholars from different think tanks and universities of India and attended by more than 50 scholars, academics, media persons, and students.

While giving the introductory remarks Dr. Pankaj Jha, coordinator of the conference and Centre for Security Studies said that the purpose is to highlight the evolving dynamics in the South China / East Vietnam sea, and how it would have an impact on great power politics as well as the faith on the international maritime order. He clearly said that the time has come for the international community to take note of the developments in SCS and work out a feasible solution protecting interest of smaller nations. In his opening address Professor Sreeram Chaulia, Dean of Jindal School of International Affairs said that the policy of US president while referring to his newly released book ‘Trumped’ talked about post US international order and gave a detailed description about how the Beijing led order would be a problem for the international community. He exhorted the scholars and academics to raise the issue in every forum to highlight the problems and cautioned that US has to commit itself to international responsibilities rather than asking for a raise for the costs of stationing US troops in Korea and Japan. He said the all UNSC permanent members should take cognizance of the developments and call a meeting of UNSC to highlight the need to take precautionary measures.

The draft COC need to be finalized without compromising on the rights of smaller nations such as Vietnam. Professor Brahma Chellaney said that Vietnam’s response to Chinese activities in Vanguard bank need to be noted and lauded. He said that despite dismal and minimum support from international community, Vietnam saw to it that its EEZ and its maritime interests are not hampered and put up a strong resistance to China. He said that the global community needs more action, and commitment to the cause otherwise the world will witness that the South China Sea might turn into a Beijing lake. He said that China has created a reclaimed area equivalent to Washington DC in the SCS region, and it would take lot of ammunition to flatten the reclaimed land. For a free Indo-Pacific Vision, South China Sea is the critical connector. The attention that should be given to the region should be more from India also as the effect would be effect in Indian Ocean also. The military activities and also demarcation of illegal maritime zones by China means that it would become completely under Chinese control. He said that Exxon Mobil a US company is planning to withdraw from South China Sea, and it means that US influence is incrementally eroding. The withdrawal of Exxon Mobil would mean that the company is not sure of US support for its exploration activities.

In the first session of the conference, Dr. Rajaram panda, the Governing Council member ofICWA of Ministry of External Affairs supported think tank said that the time has come to limit Chinese assertive postures and undertake deep thinking so that the increasing Chinese activities can be curbed, and China must comply with international rules and regulations. He said that the ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) to which China is a signatory need to be revised and amended so that threat or use of force should be seen as an act of aggression by any dialogue partner. He said that there are a number of issues involved in the strategic sea lanes and it needs ASEAN activism to address these issues so that the ASEAN multilateral organization stay relevant for its members. 

Dr Vijay Sakhuja said that while maritime domain awareness and standard operating procedures need to be framed in the context of South China Sea, the challenge is to create marine domain awareness also which is more about undersea minerals, and other valuable resources. Unfortunately, the debate is about maritime zones not the huge resources which exists and for which China has started exploration and research activities taking non-contentious zones as its domain. Oliver Gonsalves of NMF, an Indian Navy think tank said that the oil exploration activities and legitimate research activities has been thwarted by Chinese naval activities and many nations have withdrawn from the EEZ of the claimant states with the exception of China. Chinese dominance in strategic sea lanes have an impact on international trade and commerce and also marine life as well as fishing activities. Dr Faisal Ahmed, said that there are economic aspects of Chinese activities and proposed that the coastal countries and other partner countries can engage in joint exploration, knowledge sharing, and mutual capacity building in this area.

Moreover, fisheries in SCS accounts for an estimated 12 per cent of the global fish catch. It is however likely to witness a decline owing to the damaging coral reefs caused due to artificial islands and installations. The marine ecosystem is becoming gradually vulnerable, which is a serious cause of concern. Dr. Nguyen Ba Cuong, from Scientific Research Institute of Sea & Islands, Vietnam, highlighted Vietnam’s Perspective on Developments in the SCS and said that China has dispatched a ship for a months-long seismic survey, together with armed escorts, into Tu Chinh–Vung May Basin along with its continued harassments with Vietnam’s longstanding oil and gas activities in Nam Con Son Basin since June, whichever is all well within Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone. These and other developments underscored the increasing violations of China on its neighbors’ EEZ and continental shelves and just how critical managing and resolving tensions in the South China Sea are, for Vietnam and for region. He said that the international community needs to take note of Chinese expansionism, the power of international law in securing the rule-based international system, and the effective balance of power which is essential for maintaining the law and order in the Indo-Pacific region.

Chairing the second session, Brigadier (Dr.) Vinod Anand, Research Director, Vivekananda International Foundation said that the resolution of SCS is important for the safety and security of the maritime trade and commerce and in case it is not resolved under certain international guidelines then the situation would become grim and alarming. Navy Captain(Dr.) Sarabjeet Parmar, Executive Director, National Maritime Foundation opined that the South China Sea is host to multiple case studies revolving round power dynamics, rules-based order, sovereignty of islands, and the interpretation, respect, and adherence to international law. The tribunal ruling on the Philippines-China case can be viewed as a landmark judgment, which unfortunately cannot be enforced as UNCLOS works on the principle of global acceptability. He underlined and analyzed critical aspects that are germane to sovereignty, international laws and related aspects vis-à-vis the South China Sea.

Ms. Sana Hashmi, ex- consultant MEA said that over the years, China has strived to enhance its naval capabilities in the region, and a major objective behind this naval expansion is to reinforce its sovereignty claims on the South China Sea. The Chinese claims, based on arguably dubious historical precedents, are challenged by a number of countries in the region. So far, some of the claimants involved have maintained strong uncompromising positions. It has internal political dynamics involved in its international posturing. Dr. Udai Bhanu Singh from IDSA said major powers reacted to the South China Sea developments differently. As pointed out by a Chatham House study, while the leadership of Australia, India and Japan, respectively, do not have common views on China, they agree that China must be managed. Neither India, nor indeed Japan or Australia would like to see the relationship with China as a zero sum game. The U.S. takes no position on competing sovereignty claims in the South China Sea, and has not signed UNCLOS. But the US does encourage all countries to uphold international law, including the

Law of the Sea as reflected in the Law of the Sea Convention, and to respect unimpeded lawful commerce, freedom of navigation and over flight, and peaceful dispute resolution.

DrXuan Vinh Vo from Vietnam opined that ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in 2012 failed to release the communique due to the disagreement over the South China Sea dispute. After the release of a separate statement on the current developments in the South China Sea in the wake of China’s illegal deployment of oil rig in Vietnam’s Exclusive Economic Zone and continental shelf in 2014, ASEAN’s cooperative spirit has continued to decrease. Although expressing the grouping’s position, phrases such as ‘some leaders’, and ‘some ministers’ have appeared in chairman’s statements and joint communiques in recently instead of ‘leaders’ or ‘ministers’ as it used to be. The process of COC negotiation process has heavily effected by Chinese approach, especially close economic relations between China and some ASEAN member states. It is difficult for ASEAN and China to reach a legally binding COC in 2021 as scheduled.

Presiding over the last session of the Conference Dr.Jyoti MPathania, Senior Fellow of Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS) an Indian Army think tank, said that there is a need to look for possible solutions of this problem and the international community will have to undertake the task of bringing order in the region. General Shashi Asthana from United Service Institution (USI) said that while much has been said about Quad in strategic circles but SCS is the possible theater where the utility of this grouping can be explored. However, it has its limitations. It can be put to tests through group sail and joint exercises. Undertaking surveillance activities and enforcing order through military means should be an option. There are chances of flare up but then the Quad members will have to activate their international standing to force China to comply with international maritime order.

Rudroneel Ghosh, Assistant Editor, Times of India said the South China Sea (SCS) has been in media limelight in recent years due to China’s aggressive activities in the region. Beijing has been building artificial islands and militarizing some of them to bolster its claims over the entire SCS area. This, despite the fact that its so-called Nine-Dash Line cartographical claim was rejected in 2016 by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in a case brought by the Philippines. He cautioned that there is also a tendency to view the SCS issue exclusively through the prism of China and a matter between China and Southeast Asian nations. And this can be counterproductive to sustaining international media attention on the SCS, which is necessary to evolve a consensus-based architecture in line with international law.

Dr.Sripathi Narayanan said the Maritime Silk Road (MSR) and Indo-Pacific region symbolises the shift in the global centre of gravity from the Euro-centric Atlantic order to the Asian landmass. The prevailing contestation is not only confined to hegemony and power politics but also scripting the discourse on the global order. While the MSR, as a subset of the BRI is a political articulation stemming out of infrastructure projects, the Indo-Pacific is a reverse, wherein the political posturing is yet to fructify in any visible form.

In his concluding remarks Dr. Pankaj Jha said China’s assertive postures and threatening tactics that it has adopted with India’s oil exploration initiatives and also Indian naval ships have been intimidated through radio messages in the past. Given the fact that South China Sea, Sunda, Lombok and Makassar straits are areas of secondary maritime interest from India but Chinese actions to demarcate the non-contentious area also as disputed zones would add to India’s problems. The Chinese dominance in South China Sea would trickle down in Indian Ocean also and therefore India will have to make tactical and strategic choices to constrain Chinese actions in the region.He said that there is a need for dialogue partners dialogue on the subject while keeping ASEAN in the loop. There is a need for elevating East Asia Summit for more proactive role in the region.

The rapporteurs to the conference presented the findings and the summary report of the presentations by Srimal Fernando

Continue Reading

International Law

The clash of interests upon Intellectual Property Rights between Japan and Russia: The Kuril Islands case

Published

on

The Kuril Islands, Russia’s Kurilskiy Ostrova, Japan’s Chishima-Retto, an archipelago in the Sakhalin region, far east of Russia, encompassing 750 miles from the southern end of the Kamchatka Peninsula (Russia) to the northeast corner of Hokkaido Island, Japan (750 km) from the Pacific Ocean with 56 small islands which cover 6,000 square miles (15,600 sq km). The archipelago was inhabited by Ainu, and currently, are settled by Russians and Japanese.

The Kuril Islands are strategically important for both Japan and Russia. Conflict over the islands has continued throughout history. Even in these areas, there is still some misunderstanding regarding the production and fishing of islands on the island. It is an obvious fact that Russia has a number of military bases on the islands and is trying to secure safe access to the Pacific Ocean. Russia has even begun several social and economic development programs that have been allocating about 70 billion rubles(around $ 1.1 billion) in the federal budget for the development of these regions since 2014 to provide its security in the region.

According to the Ministry of Economic Development of the Sakhalin region, in 2015, Russia has launched out a new federal target program “Socio-Economic Development of the Kuril Islands (Sakhalin Oblast) for 2016-2025 years” with total funding of 68.9 billion rubles. The main priority was given to the development of the transport system, infrastructure, and improvement of living conditions. Although the development plans seemed to be decisive, locals always complain that the program did not have yet an effect on unemployment, low wages and lack of roads in the region.Local residents say that while the salaries are low, living costs are high and they have to do some work to finish their jobs.

Gydrostroy is one of the main employers on the Kuril islands. Locals built a hospital, a kindergarten, and an airport in Kurilsk several years ago. However, most locals point out that finding a job is difficult, salaries are not competitive, and most of their jobs are taken by migrant workers in the region. The island is rich in terms of natural resources, including the unique rhenium resources of the Kudryavyi volcano, but the main income comes from the fishing industry and the production of fish rye. The fish products of the island exported to Russia is quite popular in the country.

The Kuril Islands were annexed by the Soviet Union following the landing operation in the Kuril Islands at the end of World War II. The territorial dispute prevents Russia and Japan from signing an official peace treaty. Japan claims four islands: Habomai, Shikotan, Kunashir, and Iturup. According to the report given by the Russian leader Vladimir Putin to Bloomberg, Russia does not want to have trade-in territories. Many policy analysts do believe that Russia will never abandon the island in exchange for greater economic cooperation. Based on the opinion of Tamerlan Abdikeev, the founder of Tokyo-based INVERO Advisors, there are several problematic issues with the deployment of whether Russian or U.S military bases in Japan if Japan acquires one of the islands, which would not necessarily be accepted by the Russian side. He also added that economic cooperation between Japan and Russia will not be boosted upwithout taking clear-cut decisions concerning the resolution of the Kuril Islands. Therefore, it is difficult to expect mutual trust without signing an effective peace contract between the two countries.Even keeping the “status quo” between the two countries means there is little chance of change in the region. The “status quo” condition does not mean that the two parties could achieve something significant in this matter.Russia in the example of Kuril islands does not have the mind to give up the islands, as it wants those islands as the main trade and geostrategic zone of the country.

In the coming future, Russia is planning to place additional missile systems from the Hokkaido region to the two islands north of the Kuril Islands chain to strengthen its defense capabilities in the region. This plan shows Russia’s strategic importance to the Kuril Islands for the protection of the Achat Sea and nuclear forces against the United States. Russia opposes the deployment of US missile forces in the Asia-Pacific region. As the Japanese government official pointed out, while Russia has strongly criticized the United States for building a missile defense network, but they are steadily strengthening their own defense systems in the region.

In November 2016, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe for the first time hosted Vladimir Putin during his first official visit to G-7 country concerning achieving breakthrough over the territory of Japan’s northern coast. Since Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014.The four islands are known as the South Kurils in Russia and the Northern Territories in Japan and have been controversial for more than seventy years. According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, the Northern Territory consists of four islands on the northeast coast of the Hokkaido and Nemuro peninsula. These are Habomai, Shikotan, Kunashiri, and Etorofu. The northern territory is not included in the Kuril Islands.

The consistent position of Japan in this conflict is that the Northern Territories, Takeshima, and Senkaku islands are the inherent part of Japan-based on historical facts and international law that illegally annexed by Russia. (See Annexes 30 and 31 below)

In conclusion, it should be noted that Russia prefers political principles rather than legal principles in resolving territorial disputes with Japan. Russia does think that if one of those islands is handed over to Japan, the security of Russia on the American side may be in doubt. Japan, on the other hand, believes that it is more important for him to ensure territorial integrity and to work in accordance with the legal principles than political issues. Whenever the parties come together for a peace agreement, the issue remains stable and no small change is apparent. Thus, the outcome of the negotiations between the parties remains numb.

Continue Reading

International Law

Religious Hatred & International Law

Rashad Aslam

Published

on

Racism has climbed the political agenda at national, and international levels. Reports from national and international non-governmental organisations (NGO’s) and inter-governmental organisations have focused considerable attention on racism and xenophobia and document an increase in racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and race-related activities. Hate speech is one form of racism   which is directed to the victim. The current challenges posed by hate speech across the globe have prompted the need to better understand the evolution of the right to be free from the harm of hate speech as codified within Article 20(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.Martin Luther King once purported that, ‘like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man’s sense of values and his objectivity’.

The   contribution that is made by   international law to religion is   in the form of universalistic norms protecting religious diversity. Such   rules are to be found in early modern treaties such as Westphalia ending the Thirty Years War in 1648 and Vienna ending the Napoleonic Wars in 1815, however, the modern period of international guarantees, often violated, of religious freedom was guaranteed by Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant after the First World War.

The European Court of HumanRights (ECtHR)

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) serves as the regional human rights enforcement mechanism for the 47 signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).Article 10 Section 1 of the ECHR guarantees the freedom of expression―without interference by public authority, in contrary  Section 2 of the same article states that this freedom is ―subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society . . . Although The US . Constitution considers freedom of speech as a paramount right, on the contrary, the European model considers it  merely as one right that must be weighed against other democratic rights.

The decisions of the European Court that came into force in April 2010 are binding on the member states in judgments to which they are parties. This new protocol strengthened the enforcement abilities of the European Court. Several decisions have come out of the European Court concerning the intersection of freedom of speech and incitement to racial and religious hatred, including two cases which illuminate the boundary between what is acceptable and unacceptable speech, as determined by the ECHR.

Applying Article 10 to Quran burning, the European Court is likely to find that a state is within its rights to restrict such an act. Quran burning is proscribed in the domestic laws of many member states. Those laws comport with the goals listed in Article 10 Section 2 because, arguably, they protect ―the interests of national security by limiting violence against nationals, both in country and in military theaters, like Iraq and Afghanistan. They protect ―the rights of other by limiting violent demonstrations aimed squarely at one sector of society: Muslims. Furthermore, like in Giniewski, Quran burning is likely to be considered violence, so the European Court should broadly construe its responsibility to intervene.

The International Convention on Civil and PoliticalRights (ICCPR)

ICCPR, is an international agreement that names all civil and political rights enjoyed by the citizens of its member states, including freedoms of speech. It is unique because no single designated court adjudicates this convention.Article19oftheICCPRguarantees freedom of expression in general, but Article 20 proscribes war propaganda and ―any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. Under Art 19(3) of the ICCPR, restrictions on free speech must satisfy three criteria: they must be provided by law; they must be based on permissible grounds (including the protection of rights or reputation of others and the protection of public order); and must be necessary to achieve a legitimate aim (which involves a proportionality analysis).

The ICCPR clearly illustrates the difference in the American and European approaches to the issue of speech protection. Essentially, European law declines to subscribe to the principle of content neutrality, the idea that speech cannot be restricted based on the substance of a message. By qualifying speech freedom so dramatically in Article 20, the drafters of the ICCPR weaken the ―value judgment in Article 19 that freedom of speech is an important individual right that should be protected, thereby declaring that some ideas are so harmful that they should not be protected.

Moreover , Article 4 of The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) provides that measures designed to suppress hate speech need to be implemented with ‘due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of this Convention’.It is generally accepted that no area of human rights is so distant from a meaningful international consensus as the right to religious diversity, despite the fact that the rights to religious freedoms enshrined  in these important international instruments. Furthermore,   virtually  there is no effective universal supervision of international rights to religious diversity. There is, however, a regional exception in European human rights law. For example, Article 9 of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms guarantees the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. Despite  the fact that   Article –  9 contain the   right and freed of religion,   however , Article 9 has been applied, albeit less often and less forcefully , by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg compared to the other parts of European convention .

Therefore  , it can   be concluded that there are mechanism  to bring the  perpetrator of  hate speech to justice but  it all  depends on the  willingness and the racial  conscious  of the state . The quran  burning is a regular occurrence but is being neglected by the  European nations  . 

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending